Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
31 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 2003–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Holley v. Holleygreen2 sentences2024See Holley v. Holley, 864 S.W.2d 703, 706 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, writ denied). 2010See id. at 839—40; Holley v. Holley, 864 S.W.2d 703, 706 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, writ denied). | 5 | 5 |
Walker v. Packergreen2 sentences2010See id. at 839—40; Holley v. Holley, 864 S.W.2d 703, 706 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, writ denied). 2010See Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833 , 839–40 (Tex. 1992); Holley v. Holley , 864 S.W.2d 703, 706 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, writ denied). | 4 | 4 |
Garner v. Garnergreen2 sentences2009Garner v. Garner, 200 S.W.3d 303, 306 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2006, no pet.). 2009Id. | 2 | 7 |
Deltuva v. Deltuvagreen2 sentences2014Deltuva v. Deltuva, 113 S.W.3d 882, 886 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, no pet.). 2013Deltuva v. Deltuva, 113 S.W.3d 882, 886 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, no pet.). | 2 | 3 |
McLane v. McLanegreen2 sentences2011Id. “[W]e review the evidence in the light most favorable to the order and indulge every presumption in favor of the trial court’s order.” McLane v. McLane, 263 S.W.3d 358, 362 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.). 2011Id . “[W]e review the evidence in the light most favorable to the order and indulge every presumption in favor of the trial court’s order.” McLane v. McLane , 263 S.W.3d 358, 362 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re CCJ
green
2 sentences2023Id. 2016Id. | 4 | 2009–2023 |
In Re ABATW
green
2 sentences2011Id. 2011Id. | 4 | 2010–2011 |
In Re JDD
green
2 sentences2014J.D.D., 242 S.W.3d at 920 . 2008J.D.D., 242 S.W.3d at 920 . | 3 | 2008–2014 |
In Re Amw
green
2 sentences2019Id. 2019Id. | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Worford v. Stamper
green
1 sentence2011Id. “[W]e review the evidence in the light most favorable to the order and indulge every presumption in favor of the trial court’s order.” McLane v. McLane, 263 S.W.3d 358, 362 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
McGuire v. McGuire
green
1 sentence2003McGuire, 4 S.W.3d at 384 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.